Key result
Tirzepatide fails to achieve cost-effectiveness with an ICER of ~€253,000 per QALY in Germany.
Why the study?
Tirzepatide improved symptoms and outcomes in HFpEF and obesity in SUMMIT, but its acquisition cost raises concerns about value and affordability.
Is tirzepatide cost-effective compared to placebo when added to standard care in patients with HFpEF and obesity in the German health-care system?
Is tirzepatide cost-effective compared to placebo when added to standard care in patients with HFpEF and obesity in the German health-care system?
At its current price, tirzepatide is neither cost-effective nor affordable at scale for patients with HFpEF and obesity in the German healthcare system.
Tirzepatide exceeds German cost-effectiveness thresholds in HFpEF with obesity; leaves open need for price reductions before scale adoption.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is common, obesity-related, and associated with high symptom burden and healthcare use. Tirzepatide, a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, improved symptoms and outcomes in SUMMIT, but its acquisition cost raises concerns about value and affordability. METHODS: We developed a Markov model comparing tirzepatide versus placebo, both added to standard care, in the SUMMIT population from the German statutory health insurance perspective. The model used monthly cycles over 5 years with four Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score-defined health states (Q1-Q4) plus death. Arm-specific transitions and rates of all-cause death and worsening heart failure were derived from SUMMIT. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, including tirzepatide price-reduction scenarios, were conducted to explore parameter uncertainty and price thresholds simultaneously. A prevalence-based budget impact analysis extrapolated results to the German HFpEF-obesity population under alternative eligibility (SUMMIT-like vs broad) and uptake (30%, 50%, 100%) scenarios. RESULTS: Discounted per-patient costs were €5827 (placebo) and €31,052 (tirzepatide), with quality-adjusted life years of 3.539 and 3.638. Tirzepatide generated 0.100 additional quality-adjusted life years at an incremental cost of €25,225, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 252,611€/quality-adjusted life year, with low probability of cost-effectiveness at €100,000/QALY. Five-year incremental spending was ∼€1.9-6.2 billion with SUMMIT-like and ∼ €3.8-12.6 billion with broad eligibility, depending on uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide provides modest quality-adjusted life year gains at substantially higher costs and, at current price, appears neither cost-effective nor affordable at scale in German care. Substantial price reductions would be required to improve economic attractiveness and budgetary impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2026 study studied Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity. Tirzepatide vs. Placebo was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ICER 252,611€/QALY). Tirzepatide generated 0.100 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of €25,225, yielding an ICER of 252,611€/QALY, which is unlikely to be cost-effective at current prices in Germany.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: